A Five Star classic !? I think Olly has lost it, this movie was all about hype and marketing trying to sell a film that had no substance and was anti-cinematic.

Response -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 4:56:30 PM)

Amusing seeing a monster play golf with the Statue of Liberty’s head

MF DOOM -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 5:09:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

Always lovely to see people giving a film two stars without the benefit of watching it first.

Ignorance comes to mind.

Roll -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 5:14:49 PM)

Good reviews usually from Olly, although the Golden Compass one left me cold (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2007/12/golden_compass_scripts.html), i'm glad that this has paid off, although releasing it 2 weeks later than the US is a mistake. I'll give it 5 to bump up the average.

DanCurley -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 5:51:11 PM)

I always said that all I was gonna do was look at the number of stars and not read a single word of the review (anyone's) until after I've seen the film. I'll be back on this topic in 16 days time when it's about 40 pages long with about 300,000 posts...

...gggrrrr...so what's the monster then? NNNOOO!!!

DanCurley -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 5:52:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helen OHara

Always lovely to see people giving a film two stars without the benefit of watching it first.

Who gave it two stars? Or do you mean the "guess what it'll get" japes in the locked thread?

shawshank prisoner -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 5:52:57 PM)

OMG, five stars? who saw that coming?! i'm more excited about this film than ever now... although it sounds like teh sort of film that'll drop a star or two by the time it's reviewed on dvd by someone else.

skeletonjack -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 5:57:31 PM)

Cool, I wasn't sure about this one due to the hand held nature of it but am quite looking forward to it now. Out of interest how many stars would Olly have given Sweeney Todd?

Neth -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 6:03:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanCurley

Who gave it two stars? Or do you mean the "guess what it'll get" japes in the locked thread?

I believe Helen's referring to the people posting from the main site, rather than the forum, who are rating the film - with the very likely possibility that they've not clasped eyes on anything more than a trailer yet. Or maybe an episode of Alias. I said, "ALIAS."

angelus120 -> (17/1/2008 6:04:41 PM)

this should be an amazing movie! really looking forward to it. i'm glad that there were no major spoilers in the review.

Bowl of Wrong -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 6:12:57 PM)

"There will undoubtedly be those who don't enjoy it, and they've probably decided on that before seeing a frame"So, what you're saying is that you're not allowed to legitimately dislike this film? Thanks for the warning, if I end up not enjoying it, then thanks to you I'll know I am in fact wrong. Cheers.

dctuck -> (17/1/2008 6:18:48 PM)

I was expecting 3 star - 4 maximum. I might actually go and see it after all... yes, I'm fickle...

dctuck -> (17/1/2008 6:18:49 PM)

I was expecting 3 star - 4 maximum. I might actually go and see it after all... yes, I'm fickle...

Olly Richards -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 6:19:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bowl of Wrong

"There will undoubtedly be those who don't enjoy it, and they've probably decided on that before seeing a frame"So, what you're saying is that you're not allowed to legitimately dislike this film? Thanks for the warning, if I end up not enjoying it, then thanks to you I'll know I am in fact wrong. Cheers.

That's actually meant to say "some will have decided". I wasn't intending to say that anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. I've edited it.

kumar -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 6:22:47 PM)

It seems Empire are dishing out 5 star ratings willy nilly. Im surprised AVP2 didnt get it! seriously though, i didnt expect 5, and i take m hat off to them, well done!

DanCurley -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 6:23:03 PM)

One out of five I give it. I don't need to see it - I was taught journalism in "The Soothsaying University for the ESPishly Gifted". I might do a 2nd review after I've seen it.

Dirty Hartigan -> RE: Cloverfield (17/1/2008 6:25:12 PM)

Olly, do you have to get any kind of office consensus before dishing out the full five, or does the editor just fully trust your judgment? I haven't read the full review yet (to avoid spoilers), but you make some major statements in that first paragraph. This isn't a criticism by the way, I'm actually even more interested in the film now that the magazine's rated it so highly. Just wondering, is all.

sanchia -> (17/1/2008 6:42:10 PM)

Are people going to be getting motion sickness and throwing up a la The Bourne Ultimate if it is all shaky camcorder/cameraphone footage?

kenada_woo -> RE: RE: (17/1/2008 7:34:26 PM)

"It’s extremely rare in modern cinema to see a film that strikes you as genuinely new. Not just excellent – we’ve been spoiled in that department in the last six months – but properly like nothing that you’ve laid eyes on before. In the last fifteen years, Pulp Fiction, Scream, The Matrix and arguably Bourne and Jurassic Park have all done it, shaking out genres as old as celluloid and making them seem sparkly new, becoming future templates in the process. Cloverfield could come to be equally revered and imitated, such is its level of whip-smart invention and brilliant simplicity. It’s a film that treads the well-worn steps of many monster movies past, but flits through them as if on virgin territory."

So if I were someone who were swayed by reviews of a film I would be going into Cloverfield expecting a "life changing film experience" like The Matrix, Pulp Fiction and Jurassic Park or am I reading it wrong?

Bold statements. Hopefully its not along the lines of "It’s all about heart — not that the spectacle falters; this is the finest popular entertainment since the Rings trilogy closed. Superman doesn’t fly — he soars." (Superman Returns).

I'll make my own opinion of it, of course, but I dont think the film needed anymore hype than the opening to the review

UTB -> RE: RE: (17/1/2008 9:38:18 PM)

This review has perked my interest up somewhat, though I am still dubious by the quite frankly atrocious acting in the trailers...

OPtimusPrIMEruLES -> 5 STARS! AMAZING (17/1/2008 10:54:37 PM)

five stars... WOW! i was expecting maybe 2 or 3 but five it must be good so. now you people have forced me to go see it but still the monster looks pretty cool i think my computer didnt fully "hook up" to the website "forums.unfiction.com?forums?viewtopic.php?t=23679" thats the website. im giving it 2 stars for now but once i see it in 2 weeks i might change my mind

OPtimusPrIMEruLES -> OMG! the monster ITS ALIVE AND BY GOD IS IT HUGE (17/1/2008 11:01:56 PM)

i just posted a comment a second ago saying that ididnt see el monstro in full swing but now i have and it looks f'n scary holy shit it looks scary woah it jumps right at u. this calls for extra stars you can see the monster at the website mentioned in the other comment titled "5 STARS! AMAZING"

mitch_wham -> Sooo excited!!! (18/1/2008 12:28:07 AM)

I don't know what people are on about...Empire don't give many 5 star reviews at all. And by the sounds of it this is going to be something special! They have described Cloverfield as "genuinely new". A very bold statement. Is this going to be a possbile landmark in film history?! I certainly hope so. I absolutely can not wait! I'm just a wee bit annoyed that the Americans get to see it before us Brits though =P Of course, I can not exactly review this film yet, but I give it 5 stars for all the hype it has caused. And I rely and stand by Empire's judgement.

Jasper -> Five stars (18/1/2008 2:15:04 AM)

A masterpiece? Are you kidding?

Helen OHara -> RE: Cloverfield (18/1/2008 8:08:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dirty Hartigan

Olly, do you have to get any kind of office consensus before dishing out the full five, or does the editor just fully trust your judgment?

Most of the office has seen it, and we discussed the star rating before Olly wrote the review.

Forwards_are_girls -> Are you on crack? (18/1/2008 8:08:50 AM)

Mark my words boy; and mark them well...

This five star rating will come back to haunt you like an Attack of the Clones.

This film fails miserably in exactly the same way that The Blair Witch Project did. That is to say, people, when faced with extreme danger (real or imagined) do not hold up a camera to capture the moment. They run. Very fast. The other way.

Morons.

One star for that weird website with the puzzles which may or may not have had anything to do with this film.

Forwards_are_girls -> Are you on crack? (18/1/2008 8:20:26 AM)

Mark my words boy; and mark them well...

This five star rating will come back to haunt you like an Attack of the Clones.

This film fails miserably in exactly the same way that The Blair Witch Project did. That is to say, people, when faced with extreme danger (real or imagined) do not hold up a camera to capture the moment. They run. Very fast. The other way.

Morons.

One star for that weird website with the puzzles which may or may not have had anything to do with this film.

Forwards_are_girls -> Are you on crack? (18/1/2008 8:20:29 AM)

Mark my words boy; and mark them well...

This five star rating will come back to haunt you like an Attack of the Clones.

This film fails miserably in exactly the same way that The Blair Witch Project did. That is to say, people, when faced with extreme danger (real or imagined) do not hold up a camera to capture the moment. They run. Very fast. The other way.

Morons.

One star for that weird website with the puzzles which may or may not have had anything to do with this film.

Hurdy Gurdy -> Calm Down (18/1/2008 8:57:59 AM)

What would be the point of a movie if it was just a handheld camera shot of exactly what was in front of you (the tarmac). This is a monster movie and if you had no shots of the monster, what would be the point? It was a monster movie that delived exactly what it said on the tin!